What are the facts? Please keep an open mind and read the article first before casting your vote.

While there is certainly proof that mutations do occur in nature; There is absolutely no real evidence to support the theory of evolution at this time (for over the past 150 years of "Dino-digging"). Including the sedimentary column.

18

26%

There probably is evidence to support this theory, yet scientist are at a loss to explain it appropriately.

18

26%

Scientist are great at making shit up when they have no evidence to prove something that is false to begin with.

10

14%

I believe in Santa. He's a real person that lives all the way deep at the north pole and brings me presents every year. The presents prove that he's real. I also leave him milk and cookies to snack on and while I don't ever see him, I just know with all my heart, that he is the one who eats all the cookies and milk. Or, I wish I had a dogasaur like Dino.

I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

AAFitz wrote:I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

AAFitz wrote:I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

This tallies with my personal experience,all the Americans I have met on my travels have been really nice,but you step into cyberspace and wow..

To be fair, I presume the age level drops quite a bit too. And at the same time, with a few exceptions, I dont think anyone is as exaggerated in real life as they are in here. I can more or less relate and get along with anyone, and almost none of these subjects come up in real life.

john9blue wrote:"honestly i think martin might be better off dead"

sekretar: "i go to russia and then, without comp, i hoppe, i forgot this shit who kill my nerves long time!"

AAFitz wrote:I think this quote sums up this thread in a nutshell, and even in a balanced way, depending upon your...err...volume level.

So no, there's no shortage of keen scientific minds in America. We just can't build enough scientist playpens to hold them all, even though the U.S. still has more research institutes than anywhere else in the world. But it's not just colleges. Everyone's favorite whipping boy, the American education system, is also doing way better than you might think. Based on the K-12 Trends in International Math and Science Study tests, the U.S. has more high-scoring kids than any other country, rivaling Japan and Korea in math, of all subjects. So the U.S. has a whole closet full of smarty pants, thank you. It's just that we have a lot of dumb people, too, and our dumb people are really, really loud.

This tallies with my personal experience,all the Americans I have met on my travels have been really nice,but you step into cyberspace and wow..

To be fair, I presume the age level drops quite a bit too. And at the same time, with a few exceptions, I dont think anyone is as exaggerated in real life as they are in here. I can more or less relate and get along with anyone, and almost none of these subjects come up in real life.

Fair points...perhaps the loud dumb people stay at home more,possibly..

50,000 species = 100,000 creatures, not including births.A sheep eats about 4-5 pounds of food a day, a lion 10-20. (note: smaller specimens often eat more because they are are growing.Let's assume 4 pounds of food per creature per day. That's 400,000 pounds of food per day. And a similar amount of crap.So the eight people each need to deliver 50,000 lbs of food per day, and muck out 50,000 pounds of crap.If they work 24 hours a day, never sleeping or eating themselves, then they need to deliver about 34 lbs per minute each.And take away a lot of crap.

Hmmm. Gone a bit quiet, hasn't it?

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

At 300 Cubits Long, the Ark would be approximately 450 feet Long.At 50 Cubits Wide, the Ark would have a width of approximately 75 feet.At 30 Cubits High, the Ark would have a Height of 45 feet.

That's as tall if not taller than a modern four story apartment building and as wide and as long as a city block. Or put another way, it would have more than half the volume of space then the HMS Titanic. I would estimate 70 to 80 percent because the Ark is much more wider than the Titanic.

The Ark is definitely larger than a foot ball field at 300 feet Long from goal post to goal post and almost as wide.

So get your facts straight people. That's...

BIIIIG!!!

AndyDufresne wrote:How much would Noah's Ark weigh, and how much water would it displace?

--Andy

The displacement tonnage of the ark, which is the weight of water it would displace at a draught of 15 cubits, would be more than 22,000 tons. By comparison the U.S.S. Salem, a 716 foot long (218 meters) heavy cruiser commissioned in 1949, has a displacement tonnage of 21,500 tons. The gross tonnage, which is a measure of cubic space (100 cubic feet is one gross ton), would be 15,100 tons.http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... imals.html

BIG FAT REFERENCE JUST ABOVE! SEE?

Regardless, this is not even close to being large enough to contain 2 of every living species on Earth. The story you believe the Bible tells is not possible.

There are several other real possibilities.

1. That the ark was something like Snoopy's doghouse or Mary Poppin's bag... outside of time and place so that the space available was greater than that visible from the outside. Possible, certainly, given God.. but not what the Bible says.

2. The Bible is just wrong. An easy answer and favored by people who are neither Christian or Jewish, but not acceptable to those of the faiths. Though favored by some non-Crhistians, it is not worth debating in Christianity.

3. The story was never intended to be taken entirely literally. The point was that people sinned and God took action, but it was such a destructive action he won't do it again. Some say that the details were put in, really by humans, because they needed those details to understand God's story/message. Others say that the details are true, but not in the way literalists tend to think. Again, this one gives a lot of Christians and Jews pause. Some within the faith do believe this, but many don't.

4.That the story is true, but because the awareness of others, outside areas was minimal or non-existant, the people would truly understand the "world" to be their whole world of experience, not the whole round ball that we today know is the entire world. This would be consistant with the Babylonian text, because true stories will often permeate through mutliple societies. That the Jews did not write it down is irrelevant because they had a strong oral tradition at that time. Not all was written down.

5. That the story refers to true events, but many details were distorted over the very, very, very long time. It might have been included within the Bible because it gave an important lesson and was considered too true by the people for them to consider it might not be accurate. That, too, is not an easy idea for many Christians.

NOT included: That the flood did away with dinosaurs. There are many reasons this is not true, beginning with the fact that almost all, if not all dinosaurs were gone when humans came onto the scene. A more important religious reason is that dinosaurs were not mentioned at all in the Bible. Early people had no real awareness of Dinosaurs. (no, references to "behemouths' and the like are not referring to dinosaurs.. certainly not in the numbers that were prevalent at one time on Earth). The Bible gives a very good record of modern, known animals, but not ancient ones. That is because the Bible is a history of humanity and faith, not a natural history of the world, not a scientific text.

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If you want to call yourself an idiot then that's your prerogative. Ignorance is not an insult and I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. It sounds to me like you have not even read the Original Post because you are not arguing the data and info provided but instead making up allegation that I am assuming all of this and providing no resources for my words. All of my words are backed with sources and links right in the OP and it is not what I am say but what other scientist are saying also. I just happen to agree with the available and observable facts of the data provided. The examples of evolution found in text books and museums are just a hoax for money.

If evolution was a fact then there would not be a division or even a controversy!

DoomYoshi wrote:[quote=BK BARUNT]You must be a sleazy Catholic. Welcome to the Foe!

[/quote]

I don't recall saying that, but given my contempt for Catholicism it could have slipped out . . . no, i don't really use the word "sleazy", and i have no idea what you mean by "welcome to the foe". Did you make that "quote" up?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If you want to call yourself an idiot then that's your prerogative. Ignorance is not an insult and I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. It sounds to me like you have not even read the Original Post because you are not arguing the data and info provided but instead making up allegation that I am assuming all of this and providing no resources for my words. All of my words are backed with sources and links right in the OP and it is not what I am say but what other scientist are saying also. I just happen to agree with the available and observable facts of the data provided. The examples of evolution found in text books and museums are just a hoax for money.

If evolution was a fact then there would not be a division or even a controversy!

There is no division or controversy , just a bunch of young earth creationists making a lot of noise but very little sense. The fact is that 99.9 % of scientists agree with evolutionary theory , thats an overwhelming endorsement , your views are based on narrow minded dogma alone.

Neoteny wrote:A serious question for Viceroy or Premio or whoever: what is the creationist rationalization for ring species like the Ensatina salamanders?

What do you mean (I ask because if I am confused, I am guessing others might be as well?)

From an old discussion with d1g.

Neoteny wrote:There is a species of plethodontid salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzi if anyone cares) that lives in California. Its range is over a good chunk of the state making an upside down (assuming you think north is up, of course) "U" around the Great Central Valley of California. There are a series of seven subspecies that populate the "U," one starting in the mountains of SoCal, one starting in the San Francisco area, and onward around the valley. Here's a pic to illustrate:

The subspecies all interbreed as they go around the "U" making them one species according to the most commonly accepted species theory. However, at the tips of the "U," the first and final subspecies successfully interbreed very rarely, if at all (in some areas they barely can, in others they cannot at all). So now what do we call the populations that cannot interbreed? Are they a different species? If so, where do we draw the line? This is speciation in action, whether we can define it or not, and it illustrates a key point. People take for granted the idea of a species because it is generally clear-cut. A dog cannot successfully mate with a cat. A horse can breed with a donkey, but the offspring is always unfertile. This is not the case with these salamanders. In two subspecies, interbreeding is all but impossible, but if you follow the trail around the valley, it is easy to interbreed. My point is that if you don't understand the species concept that speciation theory is based on, you cannot understand speciation. The case of the salamanders also illustrates how evolution in general works. It is not a parade, but a branching that occurs. Sure it occurs in a timescale we can't observe, but this is a unique and telling snapshot.

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If you want to call yourself an idiot then that's your prerogative. Ignorance is not an insult and I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. It sounds to me like you have not even read the Original Post because you are not arguing the data and info provided but instead making up allegation that I am assuming all of this and providing no resources for my words. All of my words are backed with sources and links right in the OP and it is not what I am say but what other scientist are saying also. I just happen to agree with the available and observable facts of the data provided. The examples of evolution found in text books and museums are just a hoax for money.

If evolution was a fact then there would not be a division or even a controversy!

There is no division or controversy , just a bunch of young earth creationists making a lot of noise but very little sense. The fact is that 99.9 % of scientists agree with evolutionary theory , thats an overwhelming endorsement , your views are based on narrow minded dogma alone.

Just where do you get that figure from anyway? Nice to know that you don't have to provide a link to back you up huh?

If it's about the theory of evolution not being factual, That is not an assumption.

Here we begin with your misunderstandings.

Set aside that you are the only one claiming that the full theory evolution is proven fact. No scientists does that. Parts of it have been proven, but again, that is not even relevant to your statement, per se.

The problem is that what you call "proof" is really just assumptions and accusations made by people who have mostly not studied the science involved. Simply saying "nyah, nyah.. you are wrong and stupid for thinking you are correct" just is not evidence, sorry.

Beyond that, several of us actually have some direct experience with proofs of evolution. You dismiss our first hand accounts as if we were idiots... then point to some website with a supposed "expert" as if anyone posting on the internet must be more knowledgable.

And, most of your critiques are just plain wrong when tracked down.. not that you bother to do that tracking. You just plain ASSUME you have been told the truth... and then try to laugh at our "ignorance".

If you want to call yourself an idiot then that's your prerogative. Ignorance is not an insult and I am certainly not trying to insult anyone. It sounds to me like you have not even read the Original Post because you are not arguing the data and info provided but instead making up allegation that I am assuming all of this and providing no resources for my words. All of my words are backed with sources and links right in the OP and it is not what I am say but what other scientist are saying also. I just happen to agree with the available and observable facts of the data provided. The examples of evolution found in text books and museums are just a hoax for money.

If evolution was a fact then there would not be a division or even a controversy!

There is no division or controversy , just a bunch of young earth creationists making a lot of noise but very little sense. The fact is that 99.9 % of scientists agree with evolutionary theory , thats an overwhelming endorsement , your views are based on narrow minded dogma alone.

Just where do you get that figure from anyway? Nice to know that you don't have to provide a link to back you up huh?

Well, if there's any divide on this manner then I'm sure you could find a few scientists (i.e. people who hold PhDs in a field relevant to evolution) that claim evolution is false and also aren't biblical literalists. Show me five of those and maybe we can acknowledge that there is a divide.

This latest Darwinist lie states that the Carvings of what appears to be a Dinosaur on a cliff face are not real. Damn, it's so easy to lie to people and they will believe it especially with the internet. Not only do Darwinist create hoax exhibitions for museums and children's text book for schools, now they want to go out of their way to discredit any real evidence to the contrary by posting their lies on the internet where they know that untold millions of ignorant fools, er, I mean folks, will believe it.

It's bad enough that we are brain washing our children to believe in an evolutionary lie, but man how far will they go?

What does it mean that Dinosaurs were around with man for thousands of years? What does it mean that man's history is literally littered with evidence that the dinosaurs did not die out 65 million years ago and in fact may still be alive today in remote parts of the world?

It means that the theory of evolution and that we evolved from dinosaurs is false and should not be taught to children. It means that the Holy Bible has more credibility than any scientist afraid to tell the truth for fear of loss of employment. It means that at some point, an Unproven Hypothesis gave rise to a world of Ignorance.

The Kachina Bridge Dinosaur Carving Has Been Authenticated and is NO FRAUD!Unlike Darwinist liars who would rather deceive you in the name of science.

An article entitled, “‘Dinosaur’ petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs aﬅer all” was presented on the Palaeontologia Electronica website in March of 2011. The authors, Phil Senter and Sally Cole, claim that “because mainstream science has produced no alternate explanation for Dinosaur, it has become an important weapon in the arsenal of the anti-evolution movement.” It is interesting that Phil Senter mentions the fact that the main petroglyph in question looks like a dinosaur. Senter says that “Dinosaur, which I’ve nicknamed Sinclair because it looks like the Sinclair Gas logo, really does look like a dino when seen with the naked eye.”

It is clear that the authors set out to refute the petroglyph as evidence, usable by creationists, at any cost. They claim, “until our study, this was the best dinosaur petroglyph — that is, the hardest to argue about, because it looked so much like a dinosaur that there was no way to interpret it as anything else...The ‘best’ dinosaur is now extinct.”

In order to respond to the most important issues raised by the Senter/Cole paper, myself and a colleague revisited the site on May 20, 2011 to make a face-to-face examination and photographic record which demonstrates, contrary to the Senter/Cole assertions, that the entire petroglyph is a uniﬁed piece of ancient artwork created entirely by intelligent people using a tool to peck away the desert varnish.

Though Senter and Cole make remarks about numerous items pertaining to the creation vs. evolution controversy, I will be remarking speciﬁcally about the sauropod petroglyph under Kachina Bridge within Natural Bridges National Monument (Fig. 1). I have visited this area on a number of occasions to study this petroglyph both prior to and aﬅer Senter and Cole published their claims.

I. Proper Close-up Inspection had Not Previously Been Done:

Quoting from their own writing: “Dinosaur 1 has received considerable attention from young-earth creationists but close inspection and thorough description of it has not occurred before now. This lack of research is understandable, because it is approximately 2m above the head of the average observer on a nearly vertical surface, surrounded by rough and extremely steep terrain that discourages the carrying of a ladder, about an hour by foot from the nearest road.”

Comments: They suggest that no one has done a proper close-up examination of this petroglyph. This is simply incorrect. I personally know several researchers that have been up on the platform, have done close-up examination, have done measurements of the petroglyph, have taken photographs and done tracings of the image dating back to at least 1997. The fact is many creation researchers have been on the ledge many times doing close-up examinations. Why couldn’t Senter and Cole manage to organize such a close-up examination?

II. The Senter/Cole Method of investigation:

Quoting from their own writing: “...the four alleged dinosaur depictions were examined with the naked eye and with the aid of binoculars and telephoto lenses.”

Comments: They used binoculars and telephoto lens for their alleged close-up examination. With all due respect, both of these devices are by deﬁnition for long-distance viewing. Therefore, by deﬁnition, they never really did any close-up examination. There is really no excuse for not bringing the proper equipment. A ladder is essential to properly analyze the sauropod petroglyph. On May 20, 2011 myself and a research colleague made our way to the site with the proper investigative equipment including a ladder (Fig. 2).

It took less than twenty-ﬁve minutes to reach the location of the petroglyph in question. There is absolutely no substitute for examination with the human eye from within inches of the petroglyph (Fig. 3).

III. The Senter/Cole Conclusions about the Petroglyph:

A. Quoting from their own writing:

“The “head,” “neck,” and “torso” are a single item: a thick, sinuous shape formed by pecking. The “tail” is a second, U- shaped item formed by pecking. That the two items are indeed two separate items is indicated by a gap between them and also by differences in pecking patterns and densities between the two (Figure 1).”

Comments: Here they are suggesting that the petroglyph is really two unrelated and meaningless petroglypths that are not attached. Had Senter and Cole brought a ladder, they would never had made such an embarrassingly false comment. We’re not talking about rocket science here. We’re simply talking about a ladder. It doesn’t need to get delivered to the moon, just Kachina Bridge in Utah. If proper research is to be done, it requires getting up onto the ledge just below the petroglyph itself.

We have examined the petroglyph from literally inches away. The peck marks continue evenly from the body into the tail without a break in the type, depth, erosional features or patination. In other words, their claim that there are two separate petroglypths is patently false (Fig. 4).

There is no gap as they claim (Fig. 5, close-up). Even their own low resolution, black and white photograph shows this fact. Either they have been inexcusably careless in their research or they have blatantly lied.

B. Quoting from their own writing: “The ‘legs’ are not part of the image and are not pecked or otherwise human-made but are stains of mud or some light-colored mineral on the irregular surface.”

Comments: They suggest that the legs, which have apparently miraculously adhered themselves to the petroglyph, are nothing but a mud or mineral stain. The fact that they say the legs are either “this” or “that” (“stains of mud” or “light-colored mineral”) indicates they are unsure how the legs were produced. It is clear that the legs are lighter in color which is indicative of desert varnish removal. Desert varnish removal can occur in two ways. Water running down from the top can carry abrasives, such as sand, causing desert varnish removal. Since this is clearly not the case here (streaks would be seen from the top of the bridge running down), the only other reasonable possibility is desert varnish was removed by intelligent human means.

It is possible, that originally the legs were partially created via abrasion, a technique of rubbing an area to remove desert varnish. Sometimes petroglyphs are made with both pecking and abrasion. This combination of techniques can be seen on this example from Moab, Utah (Fig. 6). In this example, you can see that the lighter color indicates desert varnish removal. Even though peck marks are resident in the lighter area, they are of fairly low density, just like on the sauropod at Kachina Bridge

Furthermore, if the legs were mud, from where would this mud have come? How did it form itself into legs and adhere itself to the bottom of the peck marks? The fact is that there are lots of mud deposits, stains if you wish, on Kachina Bridge. Where does the mud come from? Itcomes from high up on the bridge and is carried down by water during rains and snow melt. Figure 7 shows the distinct paths mud is carried down the natural bridge.

“...the arguments of Senter and Cole have little to no scientific weight whatsoever.”

The above drawing is found in Utah, USA. It was made by American Indians 500 years ago. At the time the Indian people were nomadic tribesmen. That means that they moved around a lot. They were nomads by choice because the hunting of the American Buffalo was their main concern. Well, that and the smoking of the peace pipe. Who can blame them.

The Buffalo never stayed put in just one place. So where ever the Buffalo roamed the Indians followed. They had no cities or high technology and certainly did not have spare scientist digging for bones and collecting the bones where ever they went. Spending the night dancing and singing songs around the camp fire to their gods was the height of their scientific endeavors.

So my question is...

If no one has seen a dinosaur in over 60,000,000 million years, Then just what the hell were they drawing in the cave walls?

There is an image of a man which is certainly definable but what creature even remotely resembles that of a large Horse with a tail the size of a tree and an obvious bump on it's head which we now know that some dinosaurs had atop their heads?

crispybits wrote:

The Kachina Bridge "dinosaur," as drawn by a young earth creationist (left) and as depicted in a line drawing of the petroglyph (right). The dark shading on the line drawing represents carving done by humans, while the light shading represents mud stains that add to the dinosaur illusion. From Senter and Cole, 2011.

About 65.5 million years ago, the last of the non-avian dinosaurs were wiped out in the fallout from one of the earth’s most catastrophic extinction events. They left only bones and traces in the rock behind. Yet there are people who claim that humans actually lived alongside dinosaurs. Young earth creationists have a habit of twisting natural history to fit within the narrow confines of their interpretation of Genesis, and they insist that humans once co-existed with sauropods, tyrannosaurs, ceratopsians and other dinosaurs within the last 6,000 years or so.

To support their fantastical claims, some creationists cite what they believe to be various sculptures, carvings and other artistic representations of dinosaurs made by ancient cultures around the world. Most of these have been discredited as forgeries and misinterpreted objects, but creationists continue to use them as evidence for their peculiar view of earth history. Among the most oft-cited is a petroglyph of what appears to be an Apatosaurus-like sauropod on Kachina Bridge in Utah’s Natural Bridges National Monument. According to the fundamentalist-apologist group Answers in Genesis, “The petroglyph of a sauropod dinosaur clearly has important implications—indicating that dinosaurs were indeed known to men after the Flood until they eventually died out and became (apparently) extinct.” The assumption is that the petroglyph was intentionally carved by humans to represent a single animal that people had actually seen walking around the landscape in the recent past. A paper just published by paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole demolishes this argument.

Have you ever watched the clouds go by and thought you saw one in the shape of an animal, or seen the “man in the moon”? These are examples of pareidolia—seeing what we believe to be a significant shape or pattern when it isn’t really there. This phenomenon also explains the “dinosaur” on Kachina Bridge. Upon close inspection by Senter and Cole, the “sauropod dinosaur” turned out to be made up of distinct carvings and mud stains. It is definitely not a depiction of a single animal, and, viewed in detail, it looks nothing like a dinosaur. The separate carvings and mud stains only look like a dinosaur to those wishing to find one there.

While certainly the most prominent, the supposed sauropod was not the only dinosaur carving creationists thought they saw on the bridge. Three other dinosaur depictions have been said to exist, but Senter and Cole easily debunked these, as well. One of the “dinosaurs” was nothing but a mud stain; a proposed Triceratops was just a composite of petroglyphs that do not represent animals, and what has been described as a carving of Monoclonius was nothing more than an enigmatic squiggle. There are no dinosaur carvings on Kachina Bridge.

The Kachina Bridge petroglyphs were not hoaxes or frauds. They were carved by people who once lived in the region, but there is no indication that any of them represent animals, living or extinct. What creationists thought they saw in the rocks has turned out to be an illusion, but I wonder how many of them will actually admit their mistake?

The career path of a modern scientist.Step one: taught lies at school. Believes lies. Finds "truth" interesting, despite it being a lie.Step two: So fascinated by lies decides this is their life's work.Step three: Is inducted to the scientists secret society. They reveal " It's all lies! the Bible is actually the literal revealed word of allmighty God! We get paid to pretend that's not true!"Step four" says "OK. How much will you pay me not to tell the truth?".

Really?

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

/ wrote:A few quick questions, if life was created simultaneously; salmon and ammonites swimming side by side, deers being hunted by velociraptors. Rather than the gradual generations of change suggested by evolutionists. Why are never any Plesiosauria fossils found in layers beneath Trilobites, rather than the other way around? Why are there no pig fossils lower than pterodactyls? Why are trace fossils of footprints segregated into distinct levels?

I would still like to hear an alternative explanation to the above questions if possible.

There are thousands upon thousands of layers in the earth's crust. However, scientists have grouped the layers into major groups. The most recent three layers are the Paleozoic, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic. These layers represent the last 500 million years of life on earth.

In the Paleozoic, you find fish, amphibian, and reptile fossils (in that order), but never dinosaurs, birds, modern mammals, or even flowering plants.

Think of that: despite the billions of plant fossils in the Paleozoic layer, nobody has ever found one fossil of a flower, including any kind of deciduous tree or even a single blade of grass. Why not? The obvious explaination is flowers had not evolved yet.

The next layer, the Mesozoic, is often called the age of dinosaurs. The Mesozoic has dinosaurs like crazy. Of course, dinosaurs are reptiles and that's why you won't find any until after the Paleozoic which contains the first reptiles. The Mesozoic also has the first flowering plants, birds, and mammals, though few if any birds or mammals that we know of today.

On top of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic is the Cenozoic. This is the current layer that is still being deposited in oceans, deserts and swamps all around the earth today. The Cenozoic is the first major layer where we find modern mammal fossils like cats, dogs, monkeys and humans. This layer, or "era" is often referred to as the age of mammals.

These three layers make up a sort of 3-layer cake. Just like a cake, the bottom layer went down first, followed by the middle and the top. Since fossils progress from fish at the bottom to humans at the top, we have clear evidence that life evolved through time.

viceroy definitely has lots of time to waste with this thread and long ass posts that people will never bother reading. evolurionists have won the argument a few month ago, like on page 1.bah, I guess he justs needs something to get occupied.

I think he's a troll, as various people have pointed out. He has all the classic signs.However, he is channelling people who either believe this bollox or are trying for their own nefarious reasons to convince people about it. It's important, and not a fit subject for trolling. This crap has to be shown up as crap.

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.

jonesthecurl wrote:I think he's a troll, as various people have pointed out. He has all the classic signs.However, he is channelling people who either believe this bollox or are trying for their own nefarious reasons to convince people about it. It's important, and not a fit subject for trolling. This crap has to be shown up as crap.

i still feel sorry for him to pull all this time an effort to become even more lobotomized by his imaginary friend though.

jonesthecurl wrote:I think he's a troll, as various people have pointed out. He has all the classic signs.However, he is channelling people who either believe this bollox or are trying for their own nefarious reasons to convince people about it. It's important, and not a fit subject for trolling. This crap has to be shown up as crap.

I agree.Sir Fred Hoyle, a famous UK astronomer, wrote:

"A super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology … The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of a purposeful intelligence," (Nature: vol.294:105, Nov 12 1981).

Hoyle was the guy who coined the name "Big Bang". He coined it to ridicule the idea of an initial explosion event, and instead proposed the idea of "continuous creation", wherein matter is always appearing at a central point and moving outward, thus causing the apparent expansion of the universe. Was he right about that one?

And remember what the poet said – “in booty there is loot, and in loot booty.” Or sump’n like that.